400 vs 460
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
Torque's right, you'll have to be more specific as to what you're looking for. However, I think we can make one very broad generalization. When it comes to performance, there's no substitute for cubic inches. In stock form, the 460 has more power and torque than a 400. Similarly, if you make a well-thought out mod to a 400, and a similar mod to a 460, the 460 will most likely still have more hp and tq. As always, an entire component system has to be used to optimize engine performance for a given application through a given rpm range. Note the well-thought out and system approach ideas - they are crucial. Other factors to consider:
There is more aftermarket support for 460 engines.
A complete 460 is heavier than a 400.
Many 460s came with factory efi, no 400s did.
Just some thoughts.
Ernie
There is more aftermarket support for 460 engines.
A complete 460 is heavier than a 400.
Many 460s came with factory efi, no 400s did.
Just some thoughts.
Ernie
Lead Driver
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 342
From: Albuquerque
It's usually easier to dance with the one that brought ya. Both engines are good but if you already have one save yourself a lot of conversion hassles and build what you got. The original factory ratings for the same year were not that different.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: Shelby Ohio
i was wondering what horsepower and torque ratings were for the two different engines when they were in their prime(what years were the best for each engine) and then i was curioious as to which would rev up higher
Posting Legend
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,255
Likes: 37
You really can't compare them.
1971 400 2V 9.0:1 compression
HP 260 @ 4400
TQ 400 @ 2200
In 1971 the 460 was not listed.
Starting in 1972 HP and TQ were no longer measured at the flywheel.
They were measured at the rear wheels.
Compression was also lowered and some engines ran retarded camshaft timing.
This is the closest combination but the carbs are very different.
Different books list different figures for the same engine also.
1972 400 2V 8.4:1 compression
HP 172 @ 4000
TQ 298 @ 2200
1972 460 4V 8.5:1 compression
HP 212 @ 4400
TQ 342 @ 2800
These are all from Petersen's.
The 460 has a shorter stroke so it would theoretically rev higher but the pistons are heavier, neither engine was really designed for that. For high RPM use try the 351C or 351W.
1971 400 2V 9.0:1 compression
HP 260 @ 4400
TQ 400 @ 2200
In 1971 the 460 was not listed.
Starting in 1972 HP and TQ were no longer measured at the flywheel.
They were measured at the rear wheels.
Compression was also lowered and some engines ran retarded camshaft timing.
This is the closest combination but the carbs are very different.
Different books list different figures for the same engine also.
1972 400 2V 8.4:1 compression
HP 172 @ 4000
TQ 298 @ 2200
1972 460 4V 8.5:1 compression
HP 212 @ 4400
TQ 342 @ 2800
These are all from Petersen's.
The 460 has a shorter stroke so it would theoretically rev higher but the pistons are heavier, neither engine was really designed for that. For high RPM use try the 351C or 351W.
